Bible vs. Bible

Christian defenders have always declare that all Bible is inspired by God.

According to the pages of the "good book", "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)

19: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation. 21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Really? Well read on.

*****

The "Dake's Bible"& Confused Charismatic Theology
by Joseph Chambers

Many years ago, I became leery of the Dake's Bible, but never really understood why. The only thing I could identify was that those who became strong in their study of Dake also became arrogant and unteachable. If Dake said it, then it really did not matter what anybody else said or what the general difference was in other Scriptures. I basically quit using the Dake's Bible about twenty years ago and simply put it on the shelf.

Finally, I am beginning to learn why the inspiration I experienced caused me to move away from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. I never saw the deceptive quotes that I have recently discovered, probably because to begin with I never used it much. As I have now learned, the Dake's Bible was really the text of the Charismatics before there was a movement called "Charismatic." Let me give you one Scripture that is foundational to what Hagin, Copeland, Hinn, Crouch, etc. are now teaching around the world.

( According to this article, known evangelist use it like the late

Lester Sumrall and Benny Hinn.This Bible have helped form the

beliefs of many Pentecostal and Charismatic teachers on the scene

today. Dake was called a great Bible Scholar.~ John the Atheist )

This quote from Dake's Bible is the very first New Testament note in the edition that I have owned since the early seventies. The edition I am quoting from is the sixth printing, December 1971.

"Gr. Christos, `Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Likethe name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanityof the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord andChrist. The Heb. Is `Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible,Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc,Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

No Biblically solid minister or Bible student would accept the quote above. It is rank heresy and must be totally rejected or our view of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God is compromised. To suggest that Jesus became the Christ or the "Anointed One" thirty years after His birth is to commit heresy. This is an ancient heresy that is called "adoptionism." Kenneth Scott Latourette stated in his book, History of Christianity, Volume I, the following:

"Others, called the Ebionites, maintained that Jesus was

merely a man, a prophet, a spokesman for God, as were the great

Hebrew prophets of the past. Although some of them accepted the

virgin birth of Jesus, others are said to have taught that Jesus was

the son of Joseph and Mary, that at His baptism Christ descended

upon him in the form of a dove, that he then proclaimed the unknown

Father, but that Christ who could not suffer, departed from him at

his crucifixion." (Latourette, page 121-122, Harper Collins).

This is a dividing of the natures of Jesus Christ, rather than the established truth of the unity of His Son of God and Son of Man natures. He was both Son of God and Son of Man at every point in His incarnation. Iraneaus spoke of this in his book, Against Heresies And Knowledge Falsely So Called. He stated, "Certainly the Gnostics confess with their tongues the ONE Jesus Christ, but in their minds they divide Him." (Iraneaus; ADVERSUS Haeresies III.16.1). His two natures cannot be divided.

John R. Stott, in a commentary on the letters of John addressed this great truth. "We need therefore to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences which he passed and witnesses in some sense to his divine/human person. The . . . most satisfactory interpretation, first given by Tertullion does this. It takes water as reference to Baptism of Jesus, at which he was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for His work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished. True, `water' and `blood' remain strange and surprising word symbols, and we can only guess that they were thus used in the theological controversy which had engulfed the Ephesian church. At least this meaning of the expression tallies with what Iraneaus disclosed of the heretical teaching of Cerinthus and his followers. They distinguished between `Jesus' and `Christ'. They held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary in natural wedlock, upon whom Christ descended at the baptism, and from which Christ departed at the cross. According to this theory of the false teachers, Jesus was united with the Christ at the baptism, but became separated again before the cross. It was to refute this fundamental error that John, knowing that Jesus was the Christ, before, and during the baptism and cross, described Him as `the one who came by water and blood'." (Tyndale NT Commentaries, LETTERS OF FIRST JOHN, J.R.W. Stott, pp. 180-181.)

The words of the angel to Mary should settle this subject completely. The Scripture stated, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).

This is further emphasized in St. John's question of the Lord Himself, "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." (John 10:36-37).

He is, and was, eternally the Son of God, anointed of the Holy Ghost. The doctrines of Hagin, Copeland, Crouch, and Hinn, etc. are clearly associated with this heresy. Paul Crouch, in a statement to Benny Hinn on TBN, stated that Jesus received His divinity back when He ascended out of hell after being born again.
(See our video, TBN – The Temple Of The Gods and Goddesses.)

As I write this article, I remember a horrible crisis that occurred about twenty years ago in the church where I now pastor. We had won a man to our church and he had made wonderful progress in the study of Scripture and his spiritual life. We elevated him to a very strong leadership position and made him a key teacher in our Sunday School. He then became involved in the Copeland doctrines and began to teach the doctrine of unbiblical prosperity. One day, he proudly began to argue to me that Jesus only became the anointed one at His baptism and was not the divine Son of God until this point. I immediately knew I had a serious problem.

When our church board met to solve the problem, we asked him to either renounce this idea or resign from his class. He refused and we dismissed him. Of course, he went up the road a short distance and started his own church. We lost a host of family members; all of which have never been stable in their Christian life since that time. I remember that the Dake's Bible had become his primary study Bible and the arrogance that I now know was evident in Finis Dake had become evident in this individual. He has never returned to the stability and truth that he traded for the Charismatic deception.

Facts About The Late Finis Dake My method in trying to protect the body of Christ from deception is to refrain from any personal attack on anyone, but to deal with doctrine and Biblical truth. It seems appropriate to note some matters that relate to Dake because they were certainly part of the shaping of his ministry. My concerns are documented with information on the web site owned by the Dake's Ministry or from others, who have researched his personal life.

On the Dake web site there is an article dedicated to Finis Dake himself prior to his death, in which he stated some very remarkable things. Mr. Dake states, "I was immediately able to quote hundreds of Scriptures without memorizing them. I also noticed a quickening of my mind to know what chapters and books various verses were found in. Before conversion, I had not read one full chapter of the Bible. This new knowledge of Scripture was a gift to me, for which I give God the praise. From the time of this special anointing until now, I have never had to memorize the thousands of Scriptures I use in teaching. I just quote a verse when I need it, by the anointing of the Spirit." (Webmasters Note: I believe that Jesus had to memorize the scriptures just like any man would.)

This is absolutely contrary to Scripture and puts Dake, at least in his mind, on the same level as the Lord Jesus Christ. Remember, the criticizers of Jesus Christ stated, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15). This would certainly give rise to him having an exalted opinion of himself and may have been one of the reasons for his arrogance. No Bible writer, Old Testament prophet, or New Testament apostle ever claimed such incredible ability. There is no Scripture to support this kind of gift by the Holy Ghost.

Research into Dake's background gives a picture of moral carelessness in his early ministry. Here is a lengthy quote by researcher, Les Brown.

"Finis Jennings Dake was born in 1902 and died in 1987. His son Finis, Jr. says it took Dake seven years of constant work to complete the 35,000 notes included in the 1,400-page Annotated Bible. It is a virtual systematic theology and a compilation of Dake's views and doctrines.

"Dake was ordained under the Assemblies of God in Texas. For a time he did evangelistic work in Oklahoma. He then moved to Zion, Illinois, where his fortunes declined, following a scandal involving a 16-year-old girl.

"The May 27, 1936, issue of the Chicago Daily Tribune reported that `An indictment, returned last February in Milwaukee, charges that on April 23, 1935, Dake took Emma Barelli, 16 years old, of Kenosha, from her home town to East St. Louis for immoral purposes.' (pg. 1). The following day, the newspaper reported that
Dake registered at hotels in Waukegan, Bloomington, and East St. Louis with the girl under the name Christian Anderson and wife. Dake, according to government investigators, said he picked the girl up as she was hitchhiking and she insisted he drive her to East St. Louis, where he was to deliver Bible lectures in nearby communities. Dake denied that any immoral action had taken place, claiming, `I did take her there . . .but there was no immorality involved. I wanted to get her a job.' (Chicago Daily Tribune, May 28, 1936, pg. 17).

"When Dake came to trial in February 1937, he placed himself on the mercy of the court by entering a plea of guilty to the charge of violating the Mann Act. He was sentenced to a six-month stay in the House of Corrections in Milwaukee. Dake admitted to having `petting parties' with the girl, but again denied any improper relations had occurred between him and the girl. The Waukegan News-Sun reported, `Had he been found guilty by a trial jury, Rev. Dake would have been subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years in a federal prison and a fine of $10,000.' (Feb. 10, 1937). Dake called the jail sentence a `vacation' and said he would use his incarceration as an opportunity to preach to the prisoners and devote time to writing a commentary on the Bible.

"The Assemblies of God severed its relationship with Dake, and he later joined the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee. It is not clear how his union with the Church of God ended, but Dake eventually became independent of any church."

Dake And Mormonism
There is an abundance of confusion in Dake's Bible and his other writings. None can be worse than the quote we started this expose' with, but other departures from truth certainly paint a picture of confusion. His teachings on God the Father that are found in his notes on the book of St. John are extremely revealing. Read these words carefully.

"He is a person with a personal spirit body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit, like that of angels, and like that of man except His body is out of spirit substance instead of flesh and bones.

"He has a personal spirit body; shape; form; image and likeness of a man. He has bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips and tongue, feet, eyes, ears, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts.

"He has bodily presence and goes from place to place in a body like all other persons.

"He has a voice; breath; and countenance. He wears clothes; eats; rests; dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven; sits on a throne; walks; rides; engages in other activities.

"He has a personal soul with feelings of grief; anger; repentance; jealousy; hate; love; pity; fellowship; pleasure and delight; and other soul passions like other beings.

"He has a personal spirit with mind; intelligence; will; power; truth; faith and hope; righteousness; faithfulness; knowledge and wisdom; reason; discernment; immutability; and many other attributes, powers, and spirit faculties." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, pp. 96-97.)

I presume this is where Kenneth Copeland got his Mormon doctrine of God being about 6'2" tall and weighing about 220 pounds, with a hand span of nine inches. Also, Benny Hinn is reported to have applied his teaching on "Nine numbers in the Godhead" to Dake's Bible. He later confessed that error and said he was joking with his congregation.

Such ideas about God have no relevance in the Scripture, although Dake gives multiple quotes to back up this doctrinal commentary.

Dake Limits God's Eternal Omnipotence
Here is an unbelievable commentary that is given within the story of Abraham and his visit by the pre-incarnate Christ. He suggests that God did not know what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah and came to find out. "Here we have another proof that God receives knowledge of true conditions and becomes acquainted with existing facts. This plainly teaches that God, as well as men and angels, is limited to one place as far as the body is concerned. The doctrine of omnipresence of God can be proved, but not His omnibody. In His body He goes from place to place like other persons. Abraham stood yet before the bodily presence of God, but not before the bodily presence of the 2 angels because they went to Sodom and were no longer bodily present." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 15.)

It is totally unacceptable to limit God, who is unlimited. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. (Hmmmmm...here's the incoherent attributes of the god-concept again ~ JA) Dake's confusion arises from identifying this Divine visitor as God the Father, instead of a pre-Incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our God (another type of Christian god-concept ~ JA) has certainly manifested Himself to different servants, but not His Divine essence. The writer in the New Testament stated plainly, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John
1:18).

Dake gets around this by saying, "Our English `seen' means to see with the eyes and also see with the mind. That it means here to comprehend fully or understand is clear from the fact that many men have seen God with the eyes. The verse could read, `No man has ever comprehended or experienced God at any time in all His fulness, save the only begotten Son…He hath declared Him.'" (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 93.)

The False Concept Of "Little Gods"
Dake not only was confused about the omnipotence of God, but he also taught that man was a miniature of God. In conjunction with Dake's commentary on the Book of Job, he wrote about the idea called anthropomorphism. Under that heading, he said some strange things. "Anthropomorphism is the ascription of human bodily parts, attributes, and passions to God, and taking the substantiating statements of Scripture to be literal, and not figurative. In support of such teaching an appropriate question is: If God did not mean all He said about Himself in over 20,000 scriptures then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say. Furthermore, why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have them? Would He not be more likely to say in plain language that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members?" (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 547.)

His entire statement above seems childlike and basically ignorant of the revelation of Holy Scripture. Why would someone reduce God down to the level of men just because God speaks of Himself with words on our level? That is God's method throughout Scripture when He uses our language to convey His eternal truth. Because God said, "I saw you," does not mean His eyes are limited to human shape and size. The Bible said emphatically, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24).

From this false concept, it is natural to move directly to the next step. If God is man-like, then man must be god-like. Under the same heading as above, Dake wrote about our god-like state. "Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 587.)

This statement by Dake does not go as far as saying what is now being promoted by modern Charismatic leaders, but he does lay the foundation. His promoting of God as a man with all the human attributes, combined with the idea of us as miniature Gods, has been stretched to the present deception of men as "little gods."

Dake Carries The Idea Of Christ Emptying Himself To A Dangerous
Extreme 

The Son of God did indeed empty Himself to become the Son of man. What is extremely important is that this emptying was not a forsaking of His eternal essence, but an emptying of manifesting that essence. He was never void of His divine essence, but He did limit Himself not to express them while depending wholly on His Father and the Holy Spirit. Dake either did not understand the above or he willingly rejected it. Here are some of his statements on the subject: "Christ emptied Himself of His authority in heaven and in earth, which was given back to Him after the resurrection." "Christ emptied Himself of His divine attributes and
outward powers that He had with the Father from eternity. He had no power to do miracles until He received the Holy Spirit in all fullness. He could do nothing of Himself in all His earthly life. He attributed all His works, doctrines, powers, etc. to the Father through the anointing of the Holy Spirit." "Isaiah speaks of the Messiah being born without knowledge enough to know to refuse the evil and choose the good." "Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would be born without the tongue of the learned, without knowing how to speak a word in season to help any soul, and that He would be wakened day by day to increase in knowledge and wisdom." "He did not claim the attributes of God, but only the anointing of the Spirit to do His works." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 218.)

http://www.scionofzion.com/dakes.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------

WOAH!!!! Now Christian Bible interpretations vs. Another Christian's Bible interpretation. That's not new. Christian always accuse other Christians of "false teaching,"  but if all of them accuse each one of being false, where the heck is the true one? Hmmmm....I am now having an idea why Jesus never answered Pilate when he was asked, "What is the truth?"

As I have said, "In speaking about Bible interpretations, I notice that everytime a person defended the holy scripture, it is not the scripture he is defending but the credibility of the man who interprets it for him."

Astalabye-bye!

The Fool

Are you familiar with the Psalms 14:1? Well, most atheists are quite familiar with the said verse, thanks to the Christians who always use this verse to label those who don’t believe in the Christian god-concept.

In case you don’t know this verse, let me refresh you.

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

1

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

There!

Well, just by reading this verse, now you’ll know why a lot of Christian believers use this passage to atheists. It is quite an entertainment to call an atheist a fool.

But does this verse really say atheists are fools? At first glance it seems that way. But looks can be deceiving.

If you will read the Bible, you’ll notice that the issue of atheism was not really tackled. There are neither characters nor situations in the Bible that focuses on non-believers. Heck! Even the devil believes in God. Nonbelief is not a threat in the Hebrew God, he’s more concern of people worshiping another god (Remember he’s a jealous God).

But most Christians still believe that this verse means atheism, so they still insist that the “fool” described in this verse means an atheist.

Really? Let’s see.

Psalm 14 was written for the choir leader of the temple. So it is safe to say it is addressed to him. The word “The” is a definite article, a determiner that indicates the specificity of reference. So we are talking about a certain type of a PERSON who said in HIS heart that there is no God. This PERSON is specified as a fool. VIOLA! An atheist! Not so quite.

This person hath said in his heart. Remember the author use the word heart as a metaphor. The word heart in biblical scripture is variously used, sometimes means the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil." It sometimes mean as “human nature”.

Now this is more of a “let us choose the right word”. If the fool will say in his mind “That there is no God”, then obviously he’s an atheist. Wait a minute there! An atheist is a person who is not a theist RIGHT! So he doesn’t believe in a god or gods. The Bible is very specific about this, he who doesn’t believe in Elohim. Now let us examine the following sentence: They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. So here the word “heart” just doesn’t mean the mind, since proclaiming the whole shebang doesn’t make the whole person corrupt. We’re talking something bigger here. So I choose human nature as the nearest translation, since human nature is the complete psychological human attributes. So this is not about what’s on his understandings, but rather more on the whole of his individuality.

So, according to this verse, the fool is corrupt, they do abominable works and there is none that doeth good. The word fool is translated in Hebrew as “nabhal”. Apart from the Wisdom literature, we find nabhal frequently translated "fool" and nebhalah, "folly"; nabhal, however, it also denotes a wicked person, an evil character, "shamelessly immoral," equivalent to "a son of Belial" (Cheyne), rather than a merely "foolish" person, and nebhalah, "wickedness," "shameless impropriety," rather than simple folly. In the Chokhmah or Wisdom literature, which, within the Bible, is contained in Job, Proverbs (especially), Ecclesiastes, some Psalms and certain portions of the prophetic writings, "fool" and "folly" are frequent and distinctive words. Their significance is best seen in contrast with "Wisdom."

So does the fool in the said verse means lacking knowledge? If we use knowledge on the verse, it sounds like a person who in his knowledge accepted that Elohim doesn’t exist is a vile person. Such statement proves a very bias and short-sightedness in the part of the Psalter.

In Matthew 5:3 Jesus said that those who are “poor in spirit” (Poor means lacking off, spirit connotes to wisdom or knowledge) will have the kingdom of heaven. Another thing, Jesus has called the Pharisees as fools (Mt 23:17, 19). The Pharisees were religious leaders in their day and it’s quite strange to say that these religious leaders don’t have any knowledge about the Elohim? So then, using the word lacking knowledge about God seems not to fit.

So let’s choose the word “vile” or wicked person to replace the word fool. We are now talking about a specific person, an immoral person. Hmmmm…let see: An immoral person declares in his very nature, “There is no Elohim.” They (the immoral people) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Hmmmm…this makes more sense, isn’t it? The Psalter is not talking about non-believers; he’s talking about wicked people!

Now let us the following verse: 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. 5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

If you’ll notice this verse, the Psalter was talking about certain knowledge. Is this about the knowledge of the existence of Elohim? Does the absence of knowledge of the existence of a certain community god automatically mean the absence of morality? Or is it talking about a certain knowledge that makes a person seeks God? Remember that this verse is talking about a certain understanding that makes a person seek the Elohim. According to Psalms 119, “Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.  They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways. You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands.  I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.” (Psalms 19:1-8)

So for the Psalter, The Law is the instruction in the knowledge of God and of men's relation to Him. To seek the Elohim is to obey his laws.

So there it is folks!

Psalm 14:1-5 is not about atheists being fools, but about people in the time of King David, who lost interest in the laws of their god. Who perverted the Laws (they are called workers of iniquity. Iniquity means, "The condition of one without law", therefore it is safely to say that they perverted the interpretations of the Law), influences other people to disobey the Torah and have stopped to call or accept the God of Israel.

Hope that clears the “fool” issue.

Dinosaurs in the Bible? You got to be kidding me?

“If you can’t beat them, join them”. I think that what's on the mind of these Bible apologists when they say that you can find some references about dinosaurs in the pages of their “holy book”.

First when paleontologists discover the existence of dinosaur fossils, Christians retorted by saying that these bones were placed by Satan to deceive us to believe that dinosaur exist. Well, so far so good. When people didn’t buy this cockeyed explanation, some Christian sect made stories that say God created the dinosaur together with human beings, and what best reference they can show other than what was written in their “Holy Bible”.

The Behemoth

According to Christians, the Book of Job is the evidence that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible… Hmmm let us see.

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Isn't that great or what. Lo and behold, Job is talking about a sauropod, a Brachiosaurus. Yeah, right…

A sauropod fossil

Most Christians believe that the Behemoth in the Book of Job is a dinosaur. Many Young Earth Creationists propose that the Behemoth is a sauropod. But why are these guys’ compares the Behemoth to a dinosaur? It can mean anything? Well, let us see.  According to these Christians, Job 40:15-24 is definitely talking about a dinosaur.

1. he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly – So the Behemoth eats grass! Yep, and a dinosaur eat grass.

But so does a hippo and an elephant. Dinosaurs don’t eat grass like an ox. They were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby "raking" the leaves in the mouth. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards. Oh, and did I forgot to tell you that sauropods were tree-browsers.

 2. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

 Well… since a behemoth “has a tail that is exactly like a cedar tree” it must be a dinosaur. Good grief! Guys, can you read this verse again. It doesn’t say that a behemoth’s tail is like a cedar tree, it says that its tail move like a cedar. That means that it does not necessarily pointing towards the size of the tail, it only speaks about the motion pattern. It’s just saying that the behemoth’s tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

 In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:

"What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit..."

This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

 3. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him .

That means anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. We are not talking about a creature dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago. We’re talking about some modern African animal, like a hippopotamus, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa.

4. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water.

Hippopotamus

The writer of Job is not talking about dinosaurs here. The New Living Translation says that it's a hippopotamus. In the original Hebrew, the word behemoth is of Egyptian origin. According to the Easton Bible Dictionary, "Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The hippopotamus is truly a wild animal that "eateth grass like an ox," can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.

The Leviathan

Another dinosaur “wannabee” in the Bible is the Leviathan.

The word "Leviathan" appears six times in the Bible:

1. Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

2. Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the creatures of the desert." NIV

3. Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein" (AV);

4. Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan "; (NIV )

5. Book of Job 40: 24-32, 41:1-24: "Can you draw out a Leviathan with a hook or press down its tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a bridle ring? Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words to thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? To take him for thy servant forever? Will thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy girls? Will the tradesmen heap up payment for him?... Lay thy hand upon him, thou will no more think of fighting. Behold the hope of him is in vain, shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?...Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is near to the another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his [sneezing] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth....His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone....He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble....He maketh the deep to boil like a pot....he is a king over all the children of pride."

According to Duane Gish, the Leviathan is a dinosaur, some sort of a Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus. Yet how he forgotten that the Leviathan appears also in the Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, 'the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent with the seven heads'. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

Koronosaurus

In Psalms 74:14 it also says that the Leviathan has many heads (14Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.)

Also, let us not forget the following descriptions:

A.) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

B.) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

C.) His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth

Gosh! These descriptions sound like more of one of those Kaiju from a Japanese 1960’s monster show… like those Godzilla movies. Dinosaurs don’t have such abilities. The gentle Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus doesn’t shoot fire from their mouth. Also, there were no sailing ships of the time when sea reptiles known as pliosaurs ruled the seas.

Let me point out… the Bible is neither modern nor scientific. It was written in a poetical, ancient and mythological manner. So I hope Christian fundies should use their brain often and should try to distinguish facts from fables.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

Scientific Foreknowledge of the Bible… Weh? (Part 1)

I thought religion is not affected by science Mr Mickhey Pasco?

Anyway, the claim that the Bible has this foreknowledge on scientific discoveries is not new. The reason for this, well… it makes the claim of divine authorship credible. But, these are really all about interpretations. Christians (and their apologists) will twist and turn any scripture to make it scientific as possible.

Now here are Mickhey Pasco’s claims and the facts regarding these claims.

1. The Earth is a sphere.

The claim here is that Isaiah 40:22 says that the Earth is a sphere.  

WRONG

Did Isaiah say the Earth was a Sphere? 

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Oh! It just says “circle of the Earth.” 

Christians insist that the “circle” here means a sphere.  This is, of course, nonsense because the word sphere derives from the ancient Greek word for a globe, ball or spherical shape and the word hadn't reached the English language by the time the KJV was written. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 40:22 uses חוּג, which translates as "circle.” (chug; SEE: Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22) not a sphere or spherical. The Hebrew word chug used here cannot be translated as a sphere (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth.

Sphere is דּוּדּוּר used for the 3d circular things, but the word can also be used for describing the object one plays soccer or basketball . Ut was used in Isaiah 22:18.

2. Innumerable Stars.

Mr. Pasco concluded that Jeremiah 33:22 says that the stars are innumerable. He also claims that science only believes that there are 1100 stars.

FACTS: The ancient Summerian already believed that the stars are innumerable. They have already made a catalogue of the stars since 1200 BCE. Already have this pre-dated Jeremiah’s claim for 570 years.

3. Air has weight.

Claim: Job 28:25 predicted that air has weight.

Fact: Job 28:25 says "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure." This is poetic. According to the Pulpit Commentary,  Job 28:25 means “God by his wisdom gives to winds their exactly fitting degree of force and violence, so that they perform the work in the world which they were intended to perform, and which would not be performed, were they either of a less or of a greater intensity.” 

That doesn't sound scientific. 

4. Each Stars are different

Claim: 1 Corinthians 15:41 

“The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.”

Facts: The Sun is a star and the verse doesn't say stars are different from each other. Also,  splendor is not synonymous with size and intensity. Since splendor is not scientifically measurable, that statement by the bible is unprovable.

5. Light moves

Claim: Job 38:19-20

Job 38:19-20New International Version (NIV)19 “What is the way to the abode of light?    And where does darkness reside?20 Can you take them to their places?    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Facts: Notice Mr. Pasco conveniently forget to mention that light is also mentioned as dwelling, or staying in one place. Also, he ignores the fact that the Bible treats darkness like it actually exists, when really it's the absence of light. Also, it's Job, which, once again, is a very poetic part of the Bible.

6. Earth free floats in space (classic!)

Claim: Job 26:7

New International Version (NIV)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;

    he suspends the earth over nothing.

Facts: Earth is not suspended in nothing. Gravity is not nothing.  

7. Wind blows in a cyclone

Claim: Ecclesiastes 1:6

The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

Facts: Ecclesiastes 1:6 is a pretty much poetics. First of all, Ecclesiastes is all about how nothing matters and nothing changes. So it poetically refers to the wind as not really changing no matter what it does, or where it blows. 

Sanitized

According from an anonymous commenter, Isaiah 40:22...

Isaiah 40:22 The Message (MSG) 21-24 Have you not been paying attention? Have you not been listening? Haven’t you heard these stories all your life? Don’t you understand the foundation of all things? God sits high above the round ball of earth. The people look like mere ants."

Weh?

Ok, so he quote from The Message. According to the Wiki: The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language was created by Eugene H. Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. It is an idiomatic translation of the original languages of the Bible.

And the problem?

Well, it seems Mr. Paterson just included his own interpretation to the scriptures. Here's a good example:

Mr. Paterson has the habit of paraphrasing the Bible to make it sound... er, acceptable to modern standard. In short, he's trying to sanitized it.  Here are other examples:

So what happened to wives must "subject themselves to their husbands?"

Nice...

So that is how to put the dust inside the carpet. 

False science?

The picture above is a good example of personal interpretation.

Looking at this verse in Greek (not in the KJV) it says...

Ὦ Τιμόθεε τὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως

The word used was γνώσεως (gnōseōs) not ἐπιστήμη (epistemē). Episteme is what Ancient Greek use for science which was derived from the word ἐπίσταμαι, "to know". Now, the word science here came from the word Latin (scientia = knowledge), thanks to the Vulgate, but that is not the science as we know since science doesn't mean knowledge (in the Greek sense) but "the pursuit of knowledge."

So does 1 Timothy 6:20 means "science" or "evolution?" If you will know your Bible history correctly, the First Epistle to Timothy was written in CE 62-66. That was the same time a lot of Gnostics gospels were already circulating and the Pauline Christianity was trying to preserve itself against church heresies. So knowledge here means "false teachings" from gnostics "false doctrines" about Christianity, not about "Theory of Evolution" or from science which is about the pursuit of knowledge.